Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

I Want My GTV

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the have-some-google-with-your-google dept.

Hardware 198

theodp writes "The NY Times reports that Google and Intel have teamed with Sony to develop a platform called Google TV to bring the Web into the living room through a new generation of TVs and set-top boxes. The three companies have tapped Logitech for peripheral devices, including a remote with a tiny keyboard. Based on Google's Android operating system, the TV technology runs on Intel's Atom chips. Google is expected to deliver a toolkit to outside programmers within the next couple of months, and products based on the software could appear as soon as this summer."

cancel ×

198 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

everywhere (1, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521872)

And who still thinks Google's fingers aren't everywhere? This will be just another datamining source.

Re:everywhere (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31521916)

But at least they use nigger-free code unlike what a M$ solution would use. For a lot of people, the price of nigger-free code is worth a little datamining.

Re:everywhere (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522264)

Do`t worry be Happy! http://prikoli.in.ua ??? Is it wat? Jaja http://lolpvparts.blogspot.com && I like it http://xx-weapon.blogspot.com/
http://pocker-game.blogspot.com/

Re:everywhere (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522676)

How do you know M$ solutions aren't nigger-free code? You can't see the code; you have no idea how nigger-free M$ code may or may not be.

I'm not an M$ shill by any means. I just want you to bash M$ fairly. Heck, csh or tcsh M$ if you have to, but don't claim to know whether their code is nigger-free when you can't see the code.

Re:everywhere (3, Funny)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522268)

And who still thinks Google's fingers aren't everywhere? This will be just another datamining source.

I've been a beta-tester for the "Google toilet", and let me tell you, friend: You don't know the half of it!

Re:everywhere (4, Funny)

HamburglerJones (1539661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522978)

At first I had privacy concerns with my Google Toilet, but it has so many great features that I came up with a plan: for every one time I actually use the toilet, nine other times I'll flush down a goldfish or some coffee grinds. Knock it if you must, but security through obscurity works!

Re:everywhere (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522484)

I suspect that consumption of benzodiazepines and SSRIs at Neilson HQ has spiked on this particular announcement...

Complaints about Neilson being kind of retro have been around for a while now, and having Google's brand of sinister, hypermodern, advertising analytics baked into traditional TV set top boxes, in addition to the biggest video streaming site on the planet, and a huge number of third party sites, cannot be good news for them.

On the plus side, the Neilson CEO's shrink and cardiologist are probably happy...

GTV on PS3? (3, Insightful)

blankoboy (719577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521890)

So does this mean we'll be seeing GTV coming to PS3? No, of course not, SONY will want to sell us another set top box for extra $$$ and we'll want to work extra hard to pay for it too!

Re:GTV on PS3? (1, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521972)

It seems to be based on Android, so if you have one of the older non-slim versions of PS3 (I do), changes are that you can actually install it on your PS3.

Re:GTV on PS3? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522166)

Intel just wants to sell chips, google wants to sell ads, and sony wants to rent movies from their existing store, but who actually has an interest in the device itself? It sounds to me like the companies involved only care how they can leverage the device, not making it something that consumers actually want

Re:GTV on PS3? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522520)

In an ideal world, I would blithly respond: "Well, the device will only sell chips, ads, and movies if consumers want it, so anybody with an interest in leveraging it will infer the need to make it desirable."

This being the real world, I just think about what Sony did to the PSP slim and eat those words....

Re:GTV on PS3? (2, Insightful)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522792)

This is real convergence. A PC that is also a TV. I want that. I don't know if this is going to be the perfect expression of that, but if they can build a set-top box for $50 (and that sounds like it could be coming soon) I'd pick one up in a heartbeat.

Re:GTV on PS3? (0, Troll)

BodhiCat (925309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522202)

Gay

Re:GTV on PS3? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522346)

Why would Sony be getting on board the project if they objected to the centrepiece device's very existence?

When does the madness end? (1)

Frankenshteen (1355339) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522586)

The statement above becomes even more true across regional markets... Let's just make sure everything runs HTML 5 and we'll be fine, right?

Oh great, Sony (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521894)

If Sony's consistent behavior in the past is any indication, it will be encrypted, region-locked, proprietary, and it will only work with some weird storage or media type that only Sony makes. It will also require you to install a rootkit on your TV and let them search all your media files for pirated songs and movies before you can use it. And you'll have to submit a DNA sample and retina scan to buy one, of course.

Re:Oh great, Sony (2)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521926)

Was going to post something just like this. It was good news until I read "SONY". I make it a point to not support their business and now...

ugg...

Re:Oh great, Sony (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31521944)

Seems odd that Google, who seems to opt for openness of platform when possible, has signed on with Sony. I guess how cumbersome and closed the project is will be determined by who's calling the shots. I mean, Sony already has a history of developing hardware for a company, breaking ties when the collaboration didn't suit them, and releasing the platform on their own. That's where the playstation came from in the first place. It was intended, at conception, to be a CD add-on for the SNES.

Re:Oh great, Sony (0)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522026)

Well, what would be your suggestion for better company? Philips? Samsung? JVC? There just isn't that many good and technical TV manufacturers.

Re:Oh great, Sony (4, Interesting)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522116)

Well, perhaps that Google is big enough to change Sony's ways (at least in this particular product)..? With Google's resources, Sony needs Google a lot more than Google needs Sony (Imagine how many hardware manufacturers would jump at an exclusive right to make hardware for a GTV style product)... I like the fact that Google's "spreading the wealth" by not sticking exclusively to one hardware company (HTC) for all their physical products. Sure, Sony has made some dumb decisions in the past (and for some dumb is putting it nice), but what remains to be seen is if Google and Sony can play nice together. I wonder if there is a side to this deal that we're not seeing? Like Google exchanging this contract for rights to Sony's media collection at a bottom basement price for a music store? Or perhaps for patent rights? Or perhaps for something I can't even think of...

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521954)

Share the HD fun too, the 'cam' might have the letters H and D and 720p ready in big print on the box.
The fine print will note at 15fps.

Re:Oh great, Sony (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521966)

But it has Google as partner. I can make fun of Google Not Evil(tm) all I want. But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising, I figure it is going to be Sony's arm that is going to be twisted, and not the other way around. Further, I think at some point, even the dumbest of the dumbos finally get the message and it is well past time Sony got the message. Betamax, memory stick, rootkits etc are futile battles to fight, leading to at best, Pyrrhic victories.

Re:Oh great, Sony (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522138)

Well... it's willing to walk away from China rather than being hacked.

Re:Oh great, Sony (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522240)

But if that company is willing to walk away from China, instead of compromising

Let's wait until they actually do walk away from China before making grandiose claims about them walking away from China, k?

Re:Oh great, Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522344)

But if that company is willing to walk away from China

Google isn't willing to walk from China. The current disagreements are just posturing. Google will cave eventually, there's too much money at stake.

Re:Oh great, Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522556)

Walk away from China maybe, walk away from the Australian Human Rights Commission (re: indexing a racist article held on a US site); who knows?

Re:Oh great, Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522758)

Just so you know,

Sony still makes a shit load of money off of Betamax tapes. Most to all the news broadcasters in the world use Betamax on their cameras because it's not cost effective to buy fancy digital ones. If it's not broke don't fix it. I worked at a news broadcasting company and the in field guys use beta cassettes with their cameras.

Re:Oh great, Sony (2, Insightful)

cbope (130292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521992)

2005 called and wants it's memory back.

You do realize that Sony has been moving _away_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on /. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.

Re:Oh great, Sony (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522114)

That must be why they developed blu-ray with TWO levels of encryption and region-locking, because they're moving to be more open.

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

OldeTimeGeek (725417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522334)

If by "they" you mean the Blu-ray Disk Association [wikipedia.org] , then you'd be right. Sony is only a member. If you're going to tar them for the encryption, you also have to tar Intel, LG, Mitsubishi and 15 other members with the same brush.

Re:Oh great, Sony (0, Troll)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522400)

These idiots are just upset at Sony because either:

a) they crushed their inferior HD DVD bandwagon they prematurely jumped on.
b) they bought an Xbox as it was first out the gate (but broken), and Sony came up with something much better soon afterwards

The rest of us just buy Sony products, because they are usually very good quality for a small additional premium.

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

Yamata no Orochi (1626135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522664)

You do realize that Sony has been moving _away_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on /. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.

Making so much memory stick crap is a pretty big sin to put behind them.

Re:Oh great, Sony (2)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522680)

You do realize that Sony has been moving _away_ from proprietary formats for the last couple years? Honestly, Sony bashing on /. has become almost as much of an art as Apple and MS bashing.

So when they introduced the new PSP which requires you to utilize a singular SONY site as a gateway to acquire your games, that wasn't a move to push for more proprietary control?

Re:Oh great, google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522010)

And google will mine whatever you watch and target you with ads.

no thanks.

Re:Oh great, Sony (3, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522208)

It depends on exactly which business unit within Sony they are teaming up with.

I recently broke down and bought a PS3 for two reasons: Blu-Ray, and Final Fantasy XIII. I made some interesting discoveries:
1) Compatible with any USB storage device. Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory. (Wii uses SDHC I think?)
2) You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera. Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.
3) Same for USB headsets
4) Same for Bluetooth headsets
5) Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat
6) Want a bigger hard drive? Put in any 2.5" SATA drive
7) Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception). I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!

That said, TFA talks about Hulu. Knowing Hulu, they will actively take measures to block out this new effort. See their intentional blocking of the PS3 as an example. (Now to view Hulu video on PS3, you need PlayOn or rtmpdump 2.x + ffmpeg + MediaTomb).

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522474)

Hulu only blocked PS3 soon after they singed a deal with Microsoft...

I believe that's called Collusion in legal terms, and highly illegal in both the US and Euope. But of course it's Microsoft, so US enforcers turn a blind eye and have some nice donations...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion [wikipedia.org]

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522730)

Blocking PS3 or other "undesirable devices" (like say, macs) also violates Net Neutrality.

Re:Oh great, Sony (3, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522874)

Net Neutrality applies to service providers delivering content, not the content providers themselves.

Re:Oh great, Sony (2, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522854)

Actually, Hulu is known to block anyone who attempts to display Hulu on a television (as opposed to a PC monitor).

Yes, the distinction is blurry, but it had nothing to do with MS. Hulu has a long history of blocking anyone who implements a "set top box" method of accessing Hulu.

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

SenseiLeNoir (699164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522810)

You are right mostly about all that. I can clarify a few.

1) Compatible with any USB storage device. Compare to "no third party" locking of Xbox360 proprietary memory. (Wii uses SDHC I think?)

Correct, though there are some limits (multi partition devices are not supported well, possible size limits). Though these limits seem more technology oriented, and may be fixed by firmware.

2) You don't have to buy an Eye Toy for the camera. Supposedly any UVC compliant USB camera will work.

Correct to a point. Any UVC compliant camera should work (I have used various logitech, and MS webcams with it). However, you will not be able to access any special features of the camera beyond the UVC spec, unless a special driver is made for it. However, most webcam's Microphones are supported as long as they confirm the standard USB HID-Microphones.
However, somes games may still require the Playstation eyes, as they are programmed specifically to the specifications of that camera, and require the mutli array positional Microphone of the Playstation Eye for positional stuff.

3) Same for USB headsets
4) Same for Bluetooth headsets
5) Same for keyboards/mice for browsing and chat

Correct, any Blutooth or USB KeyBoard/Mouse/Headset or combo keyboard mouses work fine

6) Want a bigger hard drive? Put in any 2.5" SATA drive

Largely correct, though you may want to make sure your drive doesnt generate too much heat, or is thicker than normal. Not sure how it handles hybrid SSD/Magnetic drives either.

7) Media playback is UPnP based and supports quite a few formats (MKV being the most notable exception). I can use the PS3 as a MythTV frontend!

Correct, and its even DivX certified.

There is one other thing that also suprised me, considering its a Sony product. Sony sells a DVB tuner here in UK and Aus called the PlayTV. This twin DVB (Digital) tuner turns the PS3 into a full featured PVR for Freeview (UKs Free digital Terrestrial system). Whats really cool is that the recorded programms are easily copied onto a USB drive (using the menu), and are just the raw MPEG streams, complete with sub streams (subtitles) ready to be burnt to DVD or encoded to any other format.

Not sure about Hulu, I am in the UK, but we get the free BBC iPlayer instead, and also Vidzone.

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522312)

LOL at all the idiots that believe everything they read on the internet, and can't see viral marketing and spin if it slapped them in their faces...

You of course realise that Sony are responsible for some of the biggest and most popular formats of all time?

I bet there will be idiots banging on about Rootkits (these stories always bring them out the woodwork), they seem to have it on their minds that is was Sony that created the "rootkit", and have eased "First 4 Internet" from their minds, as that does not fit with their agenda...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Copy_Protection [wikipedia.org]

Re:Oh great, Sony (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522418)

Well sony is going to disable HD on component out for ALL bluray players in a year or so anyways.

No encrypted content will go out of a Bluray player if it is not protected from the scumbag consumer by the precious HDCP.

It's why I wont be buying a newer Bluray player and my current is for sale on ebay. I'll just rip the disks and bypass all their BS. Bluray -> mpeg4 and played on a XBMC dedicated box looks wonderful and you dont have any of the crap. ripbot264 + anyDVDHD so far has ripped any Bluray I have bought without problems.

Done believe me? http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2849 [blu-ray.com]

Re:Oh great, Sony (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522702)

Ahh common Sony will never make you install the rootkit for their own device, they will install it for you at the factory!

Internet on TV? Really? (4, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521928)

We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame? Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer. Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (5, Interesting)

elhondo (545224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522058)

Think of it as having an Apple TV or Popcorn Hour device embedded in your TV and I think you'll see there's something of a market there. In addition to TV, you get Hulu, YouTube, Pandora (maybe), and the ability to play recorded media from either a local hard drive or an hdna server. I have a Popcorn hour that I use to stream Hulu and Netflix to (via PlayOn), when watching on my living room TV. It's pretty handy.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

elhondo (545224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522172)

crap, i meant dlna, no hdna

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522386)

Think of it as having an Apple TV... and I think you'll see there's something of a market there.

AppleTV? Yes I think that was his point about the lack of market :)

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522636)

AppleTV? Yes I think that was his point about the lack of market :)

Apple TV proves there's not a large market for an expensive set-top box designed only to facilitate credit card transactions. Google is more likely to use the traditional paid-for-by-ad-revenue, plus of course datamining. The market is nearly unlimited for the right device at the right price point.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522626)

My Samsung BR player plays YouTube, Pandora, Netflix, and Blockbuster on Demand. It was under $100 new. It even has a couple USB ports which I understand that in other countries software can play Divx.

If it had Hulu it would be perfect, so for now we hook up the laptop to the TV when needed.

I don't need the internet on my TV, just a few web based services like those listed. With the Wii getting Netflix this summer, all we'd need it to do is support a little more recent flash to be comparable. These types of boxes shouldn't be any surprise as they are the next set top device.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522094)

think of it as Web TV, trying to sucker grandmothers into giving up hundreds of dollars on a lame piece of shit that wont browse its own home page

served up on a TV signal so its hard to read

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522206)

Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?

So you're saying that, aside from good Internet services which are good, the Internet on the TV is lame...?

Prediction: the eventual plan is to get Hulu-like programming on YouTube, then release a YouTube set-top box that can replace cable TV.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522456)

The article is talking about "Internet on TV" in the sense of accessing webpages or applications on a TV, which for the most part doesn't seem to be taking off anytime soon.

Things like Hulu are "TV on Internet" - so putting that on a TV is "TV (on Internet) on TV", so it's hardly surprising that that might have more of a market. It's pretty obvious that TV via the Internet ought to win long term, and there's a market for a TV/box that makes this easy for the living room TV, rather than just watching it on a web browser on a computer. (Similar to how hard disk recording first appeared on computers, but now it's commonplace on cable/satellite set-top boxes as standard, which makes it much easier for most people.) Perhaps this is Google's end intention, and things like browsing the web or running applications are an added bonus.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (2, Interesting)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522226)

I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time. The HTPC will never penetrate the my-mother market (too much setup, cost), so a set top box which functions in such a way has great potential. Oh, and don't say the Wii already provides this functionality: my mother does not have one of those, either :)

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522502)

HUH?

I can build your mom a HTPC for $250.00 RIGHT NOW that can do HD.

XBMC + ASUS ION based nettop + Mediacenter remote. All done. That is dirt cheap for what you get plus it's more stable than Windows7media center. and 100% open. you can configure it easily to grab all of mommies video podcasts. If mom wants to broadcast her viewing habits then use Boxee instead.

Very easy, plug and play. really stable and pretty much virus proof so you dont have to babysit it.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522574)

I have an HTPC and watch internet television services (hulu and netflix, primarily) all the time.

As do I. My point is that things like Hulu and Netflix are ALL that I use it for. Do you browse the Internet on y our TV/ Because that is what this article is talking about.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522306)

Saw the WebTV tag, do we really want to go back to mid-90s?

WebTV was a great way for the technologically impaired to join the internet, for only $10/month to Microsoft through blazing fast dial-up.

At least as Internet was defined back then, chat rooms for only the people on your service provider and wonderful text only pages. Search only yielded companies paying to list

Made Geocities look professional in comparison.

OT, but it seems like the paid search is what M$ is trying with Bing. Yeah, they are re-creating the bygone days of Prodigy, Compuserve, and AOL (Service provider, pre-TW merger).

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522360)

I actually greatly prefer watching video in a TV-like environment - somewhat back from the screen, able to sit on something comfy and relaxing, maybe with other people. I spend most of my time on the computer, but I really prefer that it be a somewhat differentiated and more social activity to watch video.

Yes, really (4, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522374)

I have a 48" big screen TV.

I do not have Cable
I do not have Satellite/Dish/DirectTV
I do not have a DVD player
I do not have decent OTA reception

I do have DSL
I do have Netflix
I do have Boxee

Pretty much the only thing that happens on my TV is the Internet. Now if the folks behind Boxee could improve the playback performance I would use nothing else. But as is I still jump out to a web browser for most Hulu content.

-Rick

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522446)

TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes. If TV can become a networked experience it will (along with smart phones) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households. Most people don't really want the wild and woolly, wide-open internet, nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522706)

TV will need to evolve to include the internet in order to accommodate market changes. If TV can become a networked experience it will (along with smart phones) easily render a computer unnecessary in most households

Eh...I don't know about that. I can follow your logic and can understand how you came to that conclusion, but I'm still not sold.

Most people don't really want the wild and woolly, wide-open internet, nor do they want to use a keyboard and mouse -- they want a pre-masticated experience delivered through an appliance controlled with an idiot-proof remote.

Which is why the iPad will sell quite well :p

(And yes, Apple fans, I know you can access the "whole" Internet with an iPad...I was just being a smartass.)

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522696)

Are you sure you are not confusing "internet" with "web browser"?

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522818)

We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame?

That was my first thought, too -- I remembered the bad old days of having to design web pages to accommodate WebTV. But the vital difference between now and then is HDTV. The newer televisions actually have the resolution to do a decent job of displaying web pages. Add a Wii-style controller for positioning the pointer, and it might actually be usable.

Mind you, *I* won't be one of their customers -- I don't even have a TV. But I suspect that there might actually be a market for this.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522862)

3D movies again? Really? didn't that trend die out in 1955?

Touch screen displays? Really? Those sucked in the early 1990s when they were all the rage.

"cloud computing?" Oh brother... didn't we ditch the mainframe/terminal model in the 80s/90s?

World of Warcraft? yeah, I remember when it was called everquest and it sucked, nobody wants an MMO

Remember 1996 when FPS games got boring and old... why do we need Modern Warfare 2, nobody is gonna play it.

(hint, there is nothing new, just better executions of old ideas.) Sometimes it takes balls to go after something that was stigmatized beyond feasibility due to early missteps.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522908)

>>>Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?

My parents would be... or anyone else who doesn't know how to use a computer, but would like to watch videos on youtube or hulu.com. Or go to government websites to look-up information. PLUS this won't be as a bad as the old WebTV which was limited to NTSC connections (approximately 440x480 resolution) with analog blur.

People today have ATSC sets that can show 1280x1080 or higher, and with the crystal clarity of a VGA/digital screen.

Re:Internet on TV? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31523052)

We're seriously doing this again? Aside from video services like YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, etc, haven't we learned that Internet on our TV is kind of...lame? Most of us have at least one computer nowadays, and many people have at least a netbook or laptop if they don't have a desktop computer. Internet + TV just seems like a waste of time and money...would anyone be interested in what they are offering here?

People use their computers / TVs differently than you do. Most of my friends aren't tech people, and they want basic internet on their TVs. These people would never buy a computer just for their TV. Some TVs have caller-ID on them. I think "What a ridiculous feature", but the people who have it, love it.

Mixed (1)

hemlock00 (1499033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31521930)

I have some mixed feelings on this. On one hand, like others have said, google seems to have it's fingers in everything. One the other hand, unlike recent new tech items like the ipad, this one did hold some interest. I often use my ps3 to surf the web on my tv, so as far as I'm concerned, let's cut out the middle man.

Suitable Content (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31521990)

Well, I'm all for it - as long as I can watch copious amount of porn and videos of kittens...

Re:Suitable Content (1)

hemlock00 (1499033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522004)

Hopefully not at the same time...

Re:Suitable Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522102)

Why not? I'm all for multitasking.

Re:Suitable Content (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522806)

For your viewing pleasure, Boobies & Kittens [youtube.com] . Probably safe for work. Probably.

Re:Suitable Content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522614)

you... you... FURRY!

I want to hack google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522000)

I mean come the fuck on, it has ALL the internet, now it wants all your phone and television? Shit man, I go live in cave

GTV name taken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522008)

Quids in for the GTV guys (quake3 game casting software) if they want that name ;oD

Re:GTV name taken (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522128)

I think there have been a few cars with the the initials too. Alfa Romeo comes to mind "Gran Turismo Veloce"

Hmm also Ghana Television and a station in Melbourne, AU (yeah I just googled it :)

missing something here (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522048)

We already have web TV. Video on Demand has been talked about for years and years and tech skeptics have always scoffed about it being a decade out for decades. Well, we have it now. The internet has the carrying capacity. Netflix is doing it for a profit. And the part that really has me excited, small-time people are making money at it without giant corporate backing. Someone wants to be on national television, they're going to have to kiss the ass of a major corporation. There's barriers to entry like the massive cost of building a television network. The internet turns all that on its head.

1. Create the tech that makes internet broadcasting technically feasible. Done.
2. Create the business model that makes internet broadcasting financially feasible. Work still needs done but it's happening. Partially done.
3. Profit

What we've seen so far is the creation of net-based versions of the cheapie mainstream shows. Porn is cheap to produce and there were a lot of amateur and low-rent outfits out there even before the net happened. They were the first ones to make it big on the net. We're seeing computer tech shows, talk shows and the like with various podcasts. They give away the content for free and make their money on sponsorship deals. While a lot of work goes into them, they're still not as expensive to produce as a network television comedy or drama. We've seen a few attempts at net-based sitcoms but they died.

Reinventing the wheel! (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522088)

Sounds like they forgot I can do the same thing with the HDMI output on my laptop.

Re:Reinventing the wheel! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522122)

Sounds like they forgot I can do the same thing with the HDMI output on my laptop.

      Not for long, if the media companies have their way.

Re:Reinventing the wheel! (1)

voodoo cheesecake (1071228) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522220)

Don't forget ACTA & the media kickbacks. Politicians would give two sh!%s less if no money was involved.

Re:Reinventing the wheel! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522524)

Only if your laptop runs a OS that rolls over for the media companies.

What, wait? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522090)

Ahh, set top boxes, payware... ok, now it makes sense. I thought for a minute that Sony - the king of DRM-infested crapware and hair-brained rootkit schemes was actually going to do something positive. Hey - if google goes along with this, does that make them an evil company yet?

Infinite Solutions (1)

domulys (1431537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522120)

Infinite Solutions broke this story over two years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9SK_M_nVWA [youtube.com]

Once you get past the easter egg, it's great!

What's old is new again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522146)

WebTV What?

Skynet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522174)

So when will Google become self aware?

Re:Skynet? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522244)

Don't worry. As soon as it becomes so, it will die from boredom watching TV.

GTV? Get permission from Philips first... (1)

fly1ngtux (1504905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522218)

First of all, Google doing anything is not a news :) Second, GTV is a platform by Philips. So, even if Google launches this 'TV', it may not be called GTV

Re:GTV? Get permission from Philips first... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522314)

Maybe Google's turning into Apple. "iPhone" is owned by Cisco? So what?

Re:GTV? Get permission from Philips first... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522542)

All of these GTVs [wikipedia.org] would beg to differ.

Unless its in the TV who cares (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522292)

Until it's integrated so that you can overlay or window the web over whatever you are watching currently I have no real desire for the web on my TV. It's nice to do in between innings in a ball game, but I don't want to have to go changing input sources to be able to do it. I nice windows system ala PiP without choosing the source, or even a way to control the transparency of the browser and plop it over whatever you have actually on TV would be great. To do this is has to be integrated in the TV, not as an add on box.

Re:Unless its in the TV who cares (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522960)

No reason this couldn't be accomplished with a set top box with pass-thu. Only one input source as far as the display is concerned - just press the "TV" (or "DVD" or "XBox" or "Internet") button on your GTV remote.

I don't get it (4, Insightful)

doti (966971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522316)

Why not a computer with tv reception already?

Re:I don't get it (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522650)

We had that for decades already... but indeed: what about a computer with *good* TV reception... No analog tuner, no digital terrestial tuner which requires a card, no crappy web-video that is put online the day after broadcast... I just want a true online TV subscription and I would pay good money to get rid of regular TV completely and just use the internet for all my communication needs...

Continued Marginalization of Nielsen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522430)

You know that Google will tracking normal TV watching too so they will be able provide ratings for web and broadcast viewing. Wonder if Nielsen is shaking in their boots yet?

I don;t want the web on my TV (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522448)

Seriously, I have a computer to do that. It's a laptop. I just put it away when I'm done with it. I don't interrupt the viewing of everyone else in my household. I don't want a lot of applications either. Computers run them well enough.

Streaming TV, and possibly youtube might work, but we don't need anything as sophisticated or complicated as a general purpose computer for those.

Did you know (1)

MGRockwell (1731924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522472)

That you can plug a PC into a TV also?

Lizzie on Dollhouse! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522694)

Sign me the hell up for Dollhouse. I'll pay a regular fee for that show.

Sony Releases Stupid Piece Of S**t ... again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522740)

I think i have seen this gizmo already :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1_vWYQ

To sum it up: It never ends this s**t...

wait.. INTEL ATOM? (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522844)

so no HD then? at least not worth watching HD.

Re:wait.. INTEL ATOM? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31522992)

Atom is the CPU. If designed for it, the GPU is what will count. The reason Atom based machines have sucked for HD video is because they have crappy graphics and/or codecs that don't do GPU offloading, not because the Atom itself is unsuitable. For an all-in-one device with a single unvarying configuration, offloading should be a snap.

Won't replace my windows 7 media center (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31522890)

My Windows 7 Media Center box does awesome things:

It's a NAS storage device,
A virtual server host (VirtualBox) that currently runs my personal TurnKey MediaWiki,
A backup device,
A frontend for windows 7 media center in my livingroom that hooks up to Boxee, Hulu, game emulators, and all of my stored media in an amazing interface,
Runs drivers for a wireless xbox 360 controller that works with my video game emulators, and PC games,
etc, etc, etc.

All for cheaper than a PS3.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>